Free Software vs Open Source

Not about OpenMW? Just about Morrowind in general? Have some random babble? Kindly direct it here.
User avatar
Zoran
Posts: 16
Joined: 13 Jun 2018, 07:40
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
Github profile: https://github.com/Emperor-Zoran

Free Software vs Open Source

Post by Zoran » 17 Jun 2018, 19:06

Where do you stand, Free Software or Open Source?

Bouth terms talk about essentially the same software because all Free Software is Open Source, but some small portion of Open Source software isn't Free Software, but they have two very different approach to it. Open Source suggest that it is a good development methodology to lincense software under the GPL or other Free Software licences. That produces better quality software, powerful, secure, reliable and stable. On the other hand Free Software says in it's name that it is a issue of freedom for users. That every user has the right to freedom on his own computer, and freedom mens having control over your own life.

For me the more important is the moral question. "Does the software respect your freedom, reader then is it more powerful and better quality. And that is why I don't use the term "Open Source" and only use Free Software term, and I encourage others to do the same.

To make a analogy:
To use Open Source philosophy is just like saying that it is good for a country to have democracy because then they will have higher GDP.
To use Free Software philosophy is a country has to have democracy because it's citizens deserve freedom.

User avatar
drummyfish
Posts: 153
Joined: 22 Oct 2017, 10:13
Github profile: https://gitlab.com/drummyfish
Contact:

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by drummyfish » 17 Jun 2018, 19:35

I stand on the Free software side and am also a supporter of Free culture in general. I'm only playing libre games and recently I began to try to only read CreativeCommons and public domain books, movies, music etc. Open-source is maybe a better understandable name and it gets people hooked more easily, so I sometimes use it too. Mostly I try to use Libre, FOSS or FLOSS. It's a bit unfortunate the naming's such a mess but yeah, ethics is the more important issue to me, though I think I define it more generally than the FSF - they mostly talk about the user's freedom and control - I also see not sharing useful information as unethical, as well as using an inefficient (proprietary) development model (i.e. reinventing wheels etc.) just because it yields more money.

lambda
Posts: 36
Joined: 11 Sep 2016, 17:10

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by lambda » 17 Jun 2018, 20:47

Where do you stand, Free Software or Open Source?
Neither, because it is a false dichotomy, nay, it is a meaningless question. Terms like "user's freedom" and "user's rights" are being bandied about, with absolutely no inkling of what their meaning is, any conceptual grounding or justification for them, neither any effort on the part of their proponents to actually rationally justify their case. Apparently, being passioned about an issue is all it takes to elevate it to a moral case. Just a tiny example:
That every user has the right to freedom on his own computer, and freedom mens (sic.) having control over your own life.
What is this even supposed to mean? How is my freedom being curtailed if I *freely* enter into a contract with a software vendor to buy their product and use it under specified, agreed-upon conditions, e.g. I buy working software but with no access to the underlying source code? What is the argument that ties a user's freedom to use the computer he bought (presumably with no strings attached, other than maybe lack of support if the user chooses some software options rather than others), in having a right to the source code of programs software companies produce? And what would this entail from a practical cum legal PoV? Do people seriously want to prohibit such contracts to be made, a flagrant violation of freedom of association? And if not, what exactly is the point of all the posturing?

I will repeat, with some additions for clarity, what I said in the other thread that psi2a tore down (for good and ill):

In the more rational times of Aristotle and his medieval Scholastic progenie, a right existed to safeguard the ability of persons to fulfill their God-given *duties*; or in short, rights exist only because, and insofar as, men have real duties, towards themselves, their families, their community, God, etc. But we have done away with God, human nature and any idea of (transcendental) duties, and yet people keep on talking about "rights", these free-floating realities, as if they had any substantial grounding or rational justification -- a grounding or justification that they never bother to give, or as if the underlying assumptions they are working under are self-evident and non-controversial. It is just pathetic.

And to forestall a certain species of ad hominem, I use arch linux; the only mod I made for Morrowind was released under the most liberal license possible. I made some mods and tools for Dominions 4 and 5 and released them under the same conditions. My work as a mathematician is also free for anyone to peruse. Etc. and etc.

This is undoubtedly a polemical rant; I do not wish to stoke an already burning fire, so unless I find it *really* necessary, I do not plan to say anything more on the issue -- in part, and as a last jab, because as I said there really is not much to respond to.

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4077
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Github profile: https://github.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by psi29a » 17 Jun 2018, 21:28

And I'll tear it down again if this gets out of hand, be warned. Keep it civil.

User avatar
Zoran
Posts: 16
Joined: 13 Jun 2018, 07:40
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
Github profile: https://github.com/Emperor-Zoran

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by Zoran » 17 Jun 2018, 22:14

lambda wrote:
17 Jun 2018, 20:47
Where do you stand, Free Software or Open Source?
Neither, because it is a false dichotomy, nay, it is a meaningless question. Terms like "user's freedom" and "user's rights" are being bandied about, with absolutely no inkling of what their meaning is, any conceptual grounding or justification for them, neither any effort on the part of their proponents to actually rationally justify their case. Apparently, being passioned about an issue is all it takes to elevate it to a moral case. Just a tiny example:
That every user has the right to freedom on his own computer, and freedom mens (sic.) having control over your own life.
What is this even supposed to mean? How is my freedom being curtailed if I *freely* enter into a contract with a software vendor to buy their product and use it under specified, agreed-upon conditions, e.g. I buy working software but with no access to the underlying source code? What is the argument that ties a user's freedom to use the computer he bought (presumably with no strings attached, other than maybe lack of support if the user chooses some software options rather than others), in having a right to the source code of programs software companies produce? And what would this entail from a practical cum legal PoV? Do people seriously want to prohibit such contracts to be made, a flagrant violation of freedom of association? And if not, what exactly is the point of all the posturing?

I will repeat, with some additions for clarity, what I said in the other thread that psi2a tore down (for good and ill):

In the more rational times of Aristotle and his medieval Scholastic progenie, a right existed to safeguard the ability of persons to fulfill their God-given *duties*; or in short, rights exist only because, and insofar as, men have real duties, towards themselves, their families, their community, God, etc. But we have done away with God, human nature and any idea of (transcendental) duties, and yet people keep on talking about "rights", these free-floating realities, as if they had any substantial grounding or rational justification -- a grounding or justification that they never bother to give, or as if the underlying assumptions they are working under are self-evident and non-controversial. It is just pathetic.

And to forestall a certain species of ad hominem, I use arch linux; the only mod I made for Morrowind was released under the most liberal license possible. I made some mods and tools for Dominions 4 and 5 and released them under the same conditions. My work as a mathematician is also free for anyone to peruse. Etc. and etc.

This is undoubtedly a polemical rant; I do not wish to stoke an already burning fire, so unless I find it *really* necessary, I do not plan to say anything more on the issue -- in part, and as a last jab, because as I said there really is not much to respond to.
Oh, am sorry, I wrongly assumed you now about the four freedoms.

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3) By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Computing is a part of life, for some people a very big part of life. And to have freedom in that part of life you have to have the four freedoms listed above. When you have those freedoms you have control over that part of life, computing. This is not irrelevant question, it is important for the computer users to know how the lose freedom using a proprietary software.

User avatar
Thunderforge
Posts: 477
Joined: 06 Jun 2017, 05:57
Github profile: https://github.com/Thunderforge

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by Thunderforge » 17 Jun 2018, 22:33

Zoran wrote:
17 Jun 2018, 19:06
Open Source suggest that it is a good development methodology to lincense software under the GPL or other Free Software licences.
If your open source software is under a free software license, then your software *is* both open source and free software. I don't see why these need to be at odds with each other.
Zoran wrote:
17 Jun 2018, 19:06
For me the more important is the moral question. "Does the software respect your freedom, reader then is it more powerful and better quality. And that is why I don't use the term "Open Source" and only use Free Software term, and I encourage others to do the same.
Morality is about what is right and wrong; good and evil. I don't think that the terminology that you use for software is in the same league as other moral issues.

lambda
Posts: 36
Joined: 11 Sep 2016, 17:10

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by lambda » 17 Jun 2018, 23:40

Oh, am sorry, I wrongly assumed you now about the four freedoms.
As I predicted; you presume I know nothing about the subject (have you read Villanueva's letter to Microsoft?), use the word "freedom" glibly without any justification for your particular use and the implications you wish to draw from it, have not understood, much less responded to the points I made, and then go on to lecture me. Well, have fun, this is a party that bores me to death.

User avatar
AnyOldName3
Posts: 1033
Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 03:25

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by AnyOldName3 » 18 Jun 2018, 01:42

My personal preference is to use the best software available to me, using freeness and openness as tiebreakers when it's not immediately clear what's best. I'm a lot happier knowing that if I break something, I can dig in and work out why it's broken and either fix it or make it easy for someone more knowledgeable to fix it, but where possible, I'd prefer software that doesn't break in the first place. In a capitalist society, it's completely possible for the best software to do a particular job to be proprietary, and its cost to a user to be far less than the cost of using their time to create a FLOSS alternative.
AnyOldName3, Master of Shadows

User avatar
Zoran
Posts: 16
Joined: 13 Jun 2018, 07:40
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
Github profile: https://github.com/Emperor-Zoran

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by Zoran » 18 Jun 2018, 08:51

... have not understood, much less responded to the points I made, and then go on to lecture me. ...
I am sorry I did not respond to every point you have made and I will now.
Terms like "user's freedom" and "user's rights" are being bandied about, with absolutely no inkling of what their meaning is, any conceptual grounding or justification for them, neither any effort on the part of their proponents to actually rationally justify their case.
User's freedom and user's rights refer to having the four freedoms I listed. It is very simple to understand. It is rational because users of proprietary software are deprived of these freedoms. There is no better way then referring to those rights as freedoms and it is justified to see them as such.
Apparently, being passioned about an issue is all it takes to elevate it to a moral case.
I am passionate about this issue exactly because it is a moral question. I don't make it a moral question. And I want to help other people to see it, and to the decide for themselves.
How is my freedom being curtailed if I *freely* enter into a contract with a software vendor to buy their product and use it under specified, agreed-upon conditions, e.g. I buy working software but with no access to the underlying source code? What is the argument that ties a user's freedom to use the computer he bought (presumably with no strings attached, other than maybe lack of support if the user chooses some software options rather than others), in having a right to the source code of programs software companies produce?
The fact that you can *freely* sign away your freedom does not mean that your not actually giving up your freedom. I will gave you a more drastic example where people used to singh to have their freedom removed. In the days of the Roman Republic people would sold themselves to slavery to repay their debts. They also *freely* sign away their freedom. Remember that freedom is often taken away from people but sometimes people give up their freedom. Users should have those freedoms so they are in control of their computers rader than the companies that make proprietary software. That includes having access to the source code. You have the freedom to change and repair your own house, and all house appliances. Same freedoms should apply to software. Main reason why users should have access to source code is to check for malicious code and unwanted features and antifeatures, and to be able to remove them.
Do people seriously want to prohibit such contracts to be made, a flagrant violation of freedom of association? And if not, what exactly is the point of all the posturing?
I never said that I want to prohibit such contracts to be made, licenses that are not free software. I don't understand where do you get that. I have never even heard from someone in the free software community to say such things. I am hear to tell people about free softwere and to convince them to not give away their freedom. Not to use proprietary software. That is the piont.
In the more rational times of Aristotle and his medieval Scholastic progenie, a right existed to safeguard the ability of persons to fulfill their God-given *duties*; or in short, rights exist only because, and insofar as, men have real duties, towards themselves, their families, their community, God, etc. But we have done away with God, human nature and any idea of (transcendental) duties, and yet people keep on talking about "rights", these free-floating realities, as if they had any substantial grounding or rational justification -- a grounding or justification that they never bother to give, or as if the underlying assumptions they are working under are self-evident and non-controversial. It is just pathetic.
If I understood you, you are saying that human rights are relativistic? That describes me. The human rights exist on moral grounds and the way they are changing is that their number is growing through history. For example people didn't have the right to sexual orientation and they have now. Before that people did not have the freedom of religion and they do now, and so on. Software is a new thing and now we are campaign for human rights in software world.
And to forestall a certain species of ad hominem, I use arch linux; the only mod I made for Morrowind was released under the most liberal license possible. I made some mods and tools for Dominions 4 and 5 and released them under the same conditions. My work as a mathematician is also free for anyone to peruse. Etc. and etc.
Thank you very much for your contribution. You have my gratitude.
This is undoubtedly a polemical rant; I do not wish to stoke an already burning fire, so unless I find it *really* necessary, I do not plan to say anything more on the issue -- in part, and as a last jab, because as I said there really is not much to respond to.
Well, have fun, this is a party that bores me to death.
You keep saying that but you keep posting with long posts. I see that you have interest in this subject but an opposite view on it.
As I predicted; you presume I know nothing about the subject (have you read Villanueva's letter to Microsoft?), use the word "freedom" glibly without any justification for your particular use and the implications you wish to draw from it, have not understood, much less responded to the points I made, and then go on to lecture me.
I don't think that using the word freedom for software user rights is gullible and it is perfectly justified. I am sorry if I offended you in any way. I did not mean to do it if I have. But you seem hostile towards me. I don't want for us to be enemies.
Last edited by Zoran on 18 Jun 2018, 09:15, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Zoran
Posts: 16
Joined: 13 Jun 2018, 07:40
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
Github profile: https://github.com/Emperor-Zoran

Re: Free Software vs Open Source

Post by Zoran » 18 Jun 2018, 09:00

Thunderforge wrote:
17 Jun 2018, 22:33
Zoran wrote:
17 Jun 2018, 19:06
Open Source suggest that it is a good development methodology to lincense software under the GPL or other Free Software licences.
If your open source software is under a free software license, then your software *is* both open source and free software. I don't see why these need to be at odds with each other.
Zoran wrote:
17 Jun 2018, 19:06
For me the more important is the moral question. "Does the software respect your freedom, reader then is it more powerful and better quality. And that is why I don't use the term "Open Source" and only use Free Software term, and I encourage others to do the same.
Morality is about what is right and wrong; good and evil. I don't think that the terminology that you use for software is in the same league as other moral issues.
It is both but if you call it "open source" the main and original message that the software should be free will be lost as it is for most free software users today.

Morality is about what is right and wrong; good and evil, and we are not talking about the technical aspect of the software but about a legal issue, the licence of the software. And that is a moral issue because it is wrong to deprive users of their natural freedoms.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests